Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I guess if you're just going to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is almost always bad actor who's lying about what they believe, there's no real conversation to be had about anything. In my experience, though, people who assume that about others based on the position they've adopted without any other information about them are really just trying to protect themselves from having to defend their own beliefs.
|
Haha, on the heels of Kavanaugh's lies
on this exact topic, you say this? Why would you pretend that gaslighting isn't exceptionally common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Not necessarily. That's true of some people, obviously. There are quite a lot of other people who would say that it's murder at 30 weeks but not at four weeks.
|
That's what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
First, I don't really buy your statement that there's evidence that it would have no effect on abortions.
|
There's an argument that legislating on late-term abortions
increases the number of abortions, forcing earlier/emergency decision-making. Regardless, given that we are at 100% effectively, it's moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Second, what you're really positing here is a utilitarian argument about weighing costs and benefits - weighing the harm caused by, effectively, forcing a woman to carry a late-stage pregnancy to term and presumably giving the kid up for adoption against the harm of ending the pregnancy. In your view, since the latter is no harm at all by your definition of what "harm" is, this is an easy call, but there's no reason to think your definition of "harm" is any better than any competing definition anyone might want to put forward - including one that says it's harmful to end the life of a foetus at 30 weeks.
|
??? huh?